New Orleans traffic cameras are constitutional, federal judges affirm

A federal appeals court has dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of New Orleans' traffic camera system, ruling that the features of the system to which a group of motorists objected "fall comfortably within the 'great leeway' given to governments" to "protect public health and safety." The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, released this week, upholds a ruling last year by District Judge Ivan Lemelle.

View full sizeChris Granger, Times-Picayune archiveA sign warns motorists that a traffic camera is nearby on Poydras Street near St. Charles Avenue in New Orleans.

Evelyn Alexis Bevis and four other plaintiffs challenged several features of the camera program, which issues tickets to owners if their vehicles are photographed at dozens of sites running a red light, speeding, making an illegal right turn on red or passing a school bus that has stopped to pick up or discharge students. Fines range from $45 to $300, plus an administrative fee of up to $80.

The program brings in millions of dollars a year for the city, but top administration officials under both Mayor Mitch Landrieu and former Mayor Ray Nagin have always insisted that their goal was to make the streets safer, not to increase city revenue.

In the class-action suit, the plaintiffs argued that the program illegally imposes criminal rather than civil penalties and does not afford adequate due-process rights for those sent tickets. They also said it violates the constitutional ban on "ex post facto" laws, or those that create or change the penalties for actions taken before the law was enacted.

In 2010, the city shifted jurisdiction over the camera program from the Public Works Department to the Police Department after state courts ruled the former arrangement violated the City Charter, but officials insisted that all tickets issued under the earlier system continued to be valid and had to be paid.

Claims dismissed

In their six-page ruling, Judges Thomas Reavley, Edward Prado and Priscilla Owen -- all of whom are based in Texas, though the 5th Circuit Court is based in New Orleans -- rejected all three of the plaintiffs' claims.

Even though the city ordinance that established the camera program emphasized that the fines would amount to a civil penalty, not a criminal violation, the court said they could still be considered "criminal in nature" if they were "sufficiently punitive in purpose or effect." It said the Supreme Court has laid out seven factors to be considered in making that determination, and only one of the seven supported the claim that the fines are not civil. "That is not enough to overcome legislative intent," the court said.

Concluding that "the ordinance imposes a civil penalty" also disposed of the "ex post facto" claim because that ban "applies only to criminal sanctions," the court said.

Deciding whether the camera program provides sufficient due-process protection to alleged violators involves "balancing the private and governmental interests concerned," the judges wrote. "In this case, the maximum fine is the relatively minor amount of $380, or $455 if the payment is overdue," they said.

They also rejected the idea that having city-hired hearing officers hear the arguments of people contesting their tickets is inherently unfair, saying the fact that the officers work for the city "does not alone offend due process."

The court further dismissed the claim that requiring drivers to appeal hearing officers' decisions to Civil District Court is wrong because of the expense involved. States can "restrict access to judicial review of civil administrative proceedings" unless a "fundamental interest is at stake," which is not true in this case, the ruling said. In fact, though, a law passed this year by the Legislature will switch the camera appeals to Traffic Court, where costs are much lower for those challenging a ticket.

The appeals panel concluded that the "private interests and risk of error" cited by those who filed the class-action suit did not outweigh the government's interest in deterring traffic accidents or justify "the fiscal and administrative burdens that ... additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail."

In a footnote, the judges noted they "express(ed) no opinion" on other possible due-process objections to the camera system that the plaintiffs did not raise in their appeal of Lemelle's ruling, such as "the ordinance's distribution of burdens of proof and the potential liability for allowing another person to drive one's vehicle."

Installer defends cameras

Besides the city, the lawsuit listed American Traffic Solutions Inc., the company that installed and maintains New Orleans' traffic cameras, as a defendant.

In a news release, ATS said the 5th Circuit decision "is one of several recent federal appellate court rulings upholding the legality and constitutionality of red-light and speed safety cameras." It cited rulings by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and by the 6th, 7th and 9th circuit courts upholding the validity of systems in Washington, Chicago, Akron, Ohio, and elsewhere against a variety of legal challenges.

Critics of red-light cameras and other automated traffic systems have used a wide variety of legal arguments in attacking them nationwide. They have succeeded in some cases in getting the cameras declared illegal. In other cases, government officials have dropped the devices voluntarily, saying they were ineffective in improving safety or else cost more to use than they brought in.

In 2010, Civil District Judge Kern Reese ruled in favor of a challenge brought by Metairie lawyer Joseph McMahon III, who began fighting red-light cameras in Jefferson Parish and Lafayette as well as New Orleans in 2008. However, Reese's ruling applied only to a ticket McMahon had received.